tv Your World With Neil Cavuto FOX News December 6, 2016 1:00pm-2:01pm PST
globe. i've met our wounded warriors. and i've grieved with gold star families. i know better than most that it is because of your service and your sacrifice that we have been able during these eight years to protect our homeland, to strike crippling blows against terrorist networks, and fortify our friends and our allies. and so today i'd like to reflect on that work and talk about the foundation that we will leave for the next administration. i came to this office with a set of core convictions that have guided me as commander in chief. i believe that the united states military can achieve any mission, that we are and must remain the strongest fighting force the world has ever known.
[ cheers and applause ] i believe that we must never hesitate to act when necessary, including unilaterally when necessary against any imminent threats to our people. but i've also insisted that it is unwise and unsustainable to ask our military to build nation nations on the other side of the world or resolve their internal conflic conflicts, particularly in places where our forces become a magnet for terrorists and insurgencies. instead it's been my conviction that even as we focus relentlessly on dismantling terrorist networks like al qaeda
and isil we should ask allies to do their share in the fight and we should strengthen local partners who can provide lasting securi security. and these convictions guided the policy we pursued both in iraq and afghanistan. when i took office, the united states was focused overwhelmingly on iraq, where nearly 150,000 american troops had spent years fighting an insurgency and helping to build a democratic government. meanwhile, al qaeda had regrouped in the border region of afghanistan and pakistan and was actively planning attacks against our homeland. so we brought nearly 150,000 troops home from iraq, consistent with the status of forces agreement negotiated by the previous administration and
we surged our efforts with our allies in afghanistan which allowed to us focus on al qaeda and give the afghan government the opportunity to succeed. this focus on al qaeda, the most dangerous threat to the united states at the time, paid dividends. today by any measure core al qaeda, the organization that hit us on 9/11, is a shadow of its former self. [ applause ] plots directed from within afghanistan and pakistan have been consistently disrupted. its leadership has been decimated. dozens of terrorist leaders have been killed. osama bin laden is dead.
and importantly, we built a counterterrorism capability that can sustain this pressure against any terrorist network in south asia that might threaten the united states of america. that was because of the work of our outstanding service members. moreover, that early decision to strengthen our efforts in afghanistan allowed us to build the capacity of afghans to secure and defend their own country. so today there are less than 10,000 american troops in afghanistan. instead of being in the lead against the taliban, americans are now support iing 320,000 afghan security forces who are defending their community and supporting our counterterrorism efforts. now, i don't want to paint too rosy a picture.
the situation in afghanistan is still tough. war has been a part of life in afghanistan for over 30 years. and the united states cannot eliminate the taliban or end violence in that country. but what we can do is deny al qaeda a safe haven. and what we can do is support afghans who want a better future. which is why we have worked not only with our military but we've backed a unity government in kabul. we've helped afghan girls go to school. we've supported investments in health care and electricity and education. you have made a difference in afghanistan and america's safer for it. [ applause ] of course the terrorist threat was never restricted to south asia or afghanistan or pakistan.
even as al qaeda's been decimated in afghanistan and pakistan, the threat from terrorists metastasized in other parts of the middle east and north africa. and most dangerously we saw the emergence of isil. the successor to al qaeda in iraq. which fights as both a terrorist network and an insurgency. there's been a debate about isil that's focused on whether a continued u.s. troop presence in iraq back in 2011 could have stopped the threat of isil from growing. and as a practical matter this was not an option. by 2011 iraqis wanted our military presence to end and they were unwilling to sign a new status of forces agreement to protect our troops from prosecution if they were trying to defend themselves in iraq. in addition, maintaining american troops in iraq at the
time could not have reversed the forces that contributed to isil's rise. a government in baghdad that pursued a sectarian agenda. a brutal dictator in syria who lost control of large parts of the country. social media that reached a global pool of recruits. and a hollowing out of iraq's security forces. which were ultimately overrun in mosul in 2014. in fact, american troops, had they stayed there, would have lacked legal protections and faced a choice between remaining on bases or being drawn back into a sectarian conflict against the will of iraq's elected government or iraq's local populations. but circumstances changed. when isil made substantial gains, first in mosul and then in other parts of the country, then suddenly iraqis reached out
once again for help. and in shaping our response we refused to repeat some of the mistakes of the 2013 invasion that have helped to give rise to the organization that became isil in the first place. we conditioned our help on the emergence of a new iraqi government and prime minister that was committed to national unity and committed to working with us. we built an international coalition of nearly 70 nations, including some of iraq's neighbors. we surged our intelligence resources so we could better understand the enemy. and then we took the fight to isil in both iraq and syria. not with american battalions but with local forces backed by our equipment and advisers and importantly our special forces. in that campaign we have now hit
isil with over 16,000 air strikes. we have equipped and trained tens of thousands of partners on the ground. and today the results are clear. isil has lost more than half its territory. isil has lost control of major population centers. its morale is plummeting. its recruitment is drying up. its commanders and external plotters are being taken out. and local populations are turning against it. [ applause ] as we speak, isil faces an offensive on mosul from iraqi troops and coalition support. that's the largest remaining city that it controls. meanwhile, in syria isil's self-declared capital in raqqah is being squeezed.
we've attacked isil's financial lifeline, destroying hundreds of millions of dollars of oil and cash reserves. the bottom line is we are breaking the back of isil. we're taking away its safe havens. and we have -- and we've accomplished all this at a cost of over $10 billion over two years, which is the same amount that we used to spend in one month at the height of the iraq war. so the campaign -- so the campaign against isil has been relentless. it has been sustainable. it has been multilateral. and it demonstrates a shift in how we've taken the fight to terrorists everywhere from south asia to the sahel. instead of pushing all of the burden onto american ground troops, instead of trying to mount invasions wherever terrorists appear, we've built a
network of partners. in libya where u.s. air power has helped local militias dislodge a dangerous isil cell. in mali, where u.s. logistics and intelligence support helped our french allies roll back al qaeda branches there. in somalia where u.s. operations support and african union-led force and international peacekeepe peacekeepers. and in yemen where years of targeted strikes have degraded al qaeda in the peninsula. these offensive efforts have buttressed a global effort to make it harder for terrorist networks to breach our defenses and spread their violent ideology's. working with european allies who suffered terrible attacks, we strengthened intelligence sharing and cut in half the flow of foreign fighters to isil.
we've worked with our tech sector to support efforts to push back on terrorist messages, on social media that motivate people to kill. a recent study shows that isil's propaganda has been cut in half. we've launched a global engagement center to empower voices that are countering isil's perversion of islam. and we're working closely with muslim majority partners from the gulf to southeast asia. this is your work. we should take great pride in the progress that we've made over the last eight years. that's the bottom line. no foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland. [ applause ]
and it's not because they didn't try. plots have been disrupted. terrorists have been taken off the battlefield. and we've done this even as we drew down nearly 180,000 troops in harm's way in iraq and afghanistan. today they're just 15,000. new partnerships have been built. we've respected the rule of law. we've enlisted our values in this fight. and all of this progress is due to the service of millions of americans like you, in intelligence and law enforcement, in homeland security, in diplomacy, in the armed services of the united states of america. it's thanks to you. [ cheers and applause ] thanks to you. now, to say that we've made
progress is not to say that the job is done. we know that a deadly threat persists. we know that in some form this violent extremism will be with us for years to come. in too many parts of the world, especially in the middle east, there's been a breakdown of order that's been building for decades. and it's unleashed forces that are going to take a generation to resolve. long-term corruption has rotted too many nation states from within. grofrns governance is collapsing. sectarian violence rages. a change in climate is -- and false prophets are peddling a vision of islam that is irreconcilable with tolerance and modernity and basic science. and in fact, every one of these trends is at play inside of syria today.
and what complicates the challenge even more is the fact that for all of our necessary focus on fighting terrorists overseas the most deadly attacks on the homeland over the last eight years have not been carried out by operatives with sophisticated networks or equipment directed from abroad, they've been carried out by homegrown and largely isolated individuals who were radicalized online. these deranged killers can't inflict the sort of mass casualties we saw on 9/11. but the pain of those who lost loved ones in boston and san bernardino, in fort hood and orlando, that pain continues to this day. and in some cases it has stirred fear in our populations and threatens to change how we think
about ourselves and our lives. so while we've made it much more difficult, you have made it much more difficult to carry out an attack approaching the scale of 9/11, the threat will endure. we will not achieve the kind of clearly defined victory comparable to those that we won in previous wars against nation s nations. we won't have the scene of the emperor of japan and douglas macarthur in a surrender. and the reason we won't have that is because technology makes it impossible to completely shield impressionable minds from violent ideologies. and somebody who's trying to kill and willing to be killed is dangerous, particularly when we live in a country where it's very easy for that person to buy a very powerful weapon.
so rather than offer false promises that we can eliminate terrorism by dropping more bombs or deploying more and more troops or fencing ourselves off from the rest of the world. we have to take a long view of the terrorist threat and we have to pursue a smart strategy that can be sustained. in the time remaining let me just suggest what i think should guide this approach. first of all, a sustainable counterterrorism strategy depends on keeping the threat in perspecti perspective. the terrorist threat is real, and it is dangerous. but these terrorists want to cast themselves as the vanguard of a new world order. they are not. they are thugs and they are murderers and they should be treated that way. [ applause ]
now, fascism threatened to overwhelm the entire world, and we had to wage total war in response. communism threatened not only to overturn a world order but threatened nuclear holocaust. so we had to build armaments and alliances to contain it. today's terrorists can kill innocent people, but they don't pose an existential threat to our nation, and we must not make the mistake of elevating them as if they do. that does their job for them. it makes them more important and helps them with recruitment. a second and related point is that we cannot follow the path of previous great powers who sometimes defeated themselves through overreach. by protecting our homeland while drawing down the number of troops serving in harm's way
overseas, we helped save resources, but more importantly, we saved lives. i can tell you, during the course of my eight years, that i have never shied away from sending danger where necessary. it's always the hardest decision i make, but it's one that i've made where the security of the american people is at stake. and i've seen the cost. i've held the hands of our wounded warriors at walter reed. i've met the caskets of the fallen at dover. and that's why i make no apologies for only sending our troops into harm's way when there is a clear mission that is achievable and when it is absolutely necessary.
number three. we need the wisdom to see that upholding our values and adhering to the rule of law is not a weakness in the left-wing te long term, it is our greatest strength. [ applause ] the whole object of these terrorists is to scare us into changing the nature of who we are and our democracy. and the fact is people and nations do not make good decisions when they are driven by fear. these terrorists can never directly destroy our way of life. but we can do it for them if we lose track of who we are and the values that this nation was founded upon. [ applause ] and i always remind myself that as commander in chief i must protect our people but i also
swore an oath to defend our constitution. and over these last eight years we've demonstrated that staying true to our traditions as a nation of laws advances our security as well as our values. we prohibited torture everywhere at all times, and that includes tactics like waterboarding. and at no time has anybody who has worked with me told me that doing so has cost us good intelligence. [ applause ] when we do capture terrorists, despite all the political rhetoric about the need to strip terrorists of their rights, our interrogation teams have obtained valuable information from terrorists without resorting to torture, without operating outside the law. our article 3 courts have delivered justice faster than
military trials. and our prisons have proven more than capable of holding the most dangerous terrorists. consider the terrorists who have been captured lawfully interrogated and prosecuted in civilian courts. faisal shahzad, who tried to set off a car bomb in times square. dzhokhar tsarnaev, the boston marathon bomber. um umar farouk abdulmutallab, the so-called underwear bomber. we did it lawfully. and the wheels of justice right now are turning for others. terrorists like ahmed wasarni, an al shabab commander and abu katala, accused leader of the benghazi attack. we can get these terrorists and stay true to who we are.
and in fact our success in dealing with terrorists through our justice he system reinforces why it's time to shut down the detention center at guantanamo. it is not just my opinion. it's the opinion many military leaders. during my administration we have responsibly transferred over 175 detainees to foreign governments with safeguards to reduce the risk of them returning to the batt battlefield. and we've cut the population in gitmo from 242 to 59. the politics of fear is what prevents any detainees from being transferred to prisons in the united states. even though as we speak we imprison dangerous terrorists in our prisons and we have even more dangerous criminals in all of our prisons across the country. even though our allies
oftentimes will not turn over a terrorist if they think that terrorists could end up in gitmo. even though groups like isil use gitmo in their propaganda. so we're wasting hundreds of millions of dollars to keep fewer than 60 people in a detention facility in cuba. that's not strength. until congress changes course, it will be judged harshly by history. and i will continue to do all that i can to remove this plot on our national honor. [ applause ] number 4, we have to fight terrorists in a way that does not create more terrorists. for example, in a dangerous world terrorists seek out places where it's often impossible to capture them or to count on local governments to do so. and that means the best option for us to get those terrorists becomes a targeted strike.
so we have taken action. under my command. including with drones. to remove terrorists from the battlefield, which protects our troops and has prevented real threats to the american people. [ applause ] under rules that i've put in place and that i've made public before any strike is taken outside of a war zone there must be near certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured. and while nothing is certain in any strike and we have acknowledged there are tragic incidents where innocents have been killed by our strikes, this is the highest standard that we can set. nevertheless we still have
critics who suggest that these strikes are wrong. and i say to them you have to way the alternatives. drone strikes allow to us deny terrorists a safe haven without air strikes, which are less precise, or invasions that are much more likely to kill innocent civilians as well as american service members. so the actions that we've taken have saved lievves, at home and abroad. but the point is we do have to be careful to determine that when we take actions we're not alienating local populations because that will serve as recruitment for new terrorists. number 5, transparency and accountability serve our national security not just in times of peace but more importantly in times of conflict. that's why we've made public information about which terrorist organizations we're fighting and why we're fighting them. we've released assessments of
non-combatants killed in our operations. taken responsibility when mistakes are made. we declassified information about interrogation methods that were wrong. so we've learned from past mistakes. and yesterday i directed our government for the first time to release a full description of the legal and policy frameworks that guide our military operations around the world. this public information allows for a more informed public debate, and it provides a potential check on unfettered executive power. the power of the presidency usasome, but it is supposed to be bound by you, our citizens. [ applause ] but here's the thing. that information doesn't mean anything. it doesn't work. if the people's representatives
in congress don't do their jobs. because they're not paying attention. right now we are waging war by authorities provided by congress over 15 years ago. 15 years adpogo. i had no gray hair 15 years ago. two years ago i asked congress let's update the authorization, provide us a new authorization for the war against isil reflecting the changing nature of the threats. reflecting the lessons that we've learned from the last decade. so far congress has refused to take a vote. democracies should not operate in a state of permanently authorized war. that's not good for our military. it's not good for our democracy.
and by the way, part of the reason that's dangerous is because today with our outstanding all-voluntary force only 1% of the population is actually fighting. which means that you are carrying the burden. [ applause ] which means that it is important for us to know what it is that we're doing and have to explain what we're doing to the public because it becomes too easy to just send 1% of the people out to do things even if they're not well thought through. if a threat is serious enough to require the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, then members of congress should at least have courage to make clear where they stand, not on the sidelines, not on cable tv shows, but on fulfilling their constitutional duty and authorizing the use of force against the threats that we face
today. that's how democracies are supposed to work. number 6, alongside our outstanding military work we have to draw upon the strength of our diplomacy. terrorists would love to see us walk away from the type of work that builds international coalition and ends conflict and stops the spread of deadly weapons. it would make life easier for them. it would be a tragic mistake for us. just think about what we've done the last eight years without firing a shot. we've rolled back iran's nuclear program. that's not just my assessment. that's the assessment of israeli intelligence even though they were opposed to the deal. we secured nuclear materials around the globe. reducing the risk that they fall into the hands of terrorists. we've eliminated syria's declared chemical weapons prachl. all of these steps have helped keep us safe and helped keep our troops safe. those are the result of
diplomacy. and sustained diplomatic efforts, no matter how frustrating or difficult they sometimes appear, are going to be required to resolve the conflicts roiling in the middle east, from yes, ma'am-tone syria to israel and palestine. and if we don't have strong efforts there the more you will be called to clean up after the failure of diplomacy. similarly any long-term are strategy to reduce the threat of terrorism depends on investment in some of these fragile societies. our generals, our commanders understand this. this is not charity. it's fundamental to our national security. a dollar spent on development is worth a lot more than a dollar spent fighting a war. [ applause ] this is -- this is how we
military. if we stigmatize good patriotic muslims that just feeds the terrorist narrative. it fuels the same false grievances that they use to motivate people to kill. if we act like this is a war between the united states and islam, we're not just going to lose more americans to terrorist attacks. we'll also lose sight of the very principles we claim to defend. so let me final words to you as your commander in chief be a reminder of what it is you're fighting for. what it is that we are fighting f for. the united states of america is not a country that imposes religious tests as a price for
freedom. we're a country that was founded so that people couldç practice their faiths as they choose. the united states of america is not a place where some citizens have to withstand greater scrutiny or carry a special i.d. card or prove that they're not an enemy from within. we're a country that has pled and struggled and sacrifices against that kind of discrimination and arbitrary rule. here in our own country and around the world. we're a nation that believes freedom can never be taken for granted and that each of us has a responsibility to sustain it. the universal right to speak your mind and to protest against authority. to live in a society that's open and free. that can criticize a president without retribution. [ applause ]
a country where you're judged by the content of your character rather than what you look like or how you worship or what your last name is or where your family came from. that's what separates us from tyrants and terrorists. we are a nation that stands for the rule of law and strengthened the laws of war. when the nazis were defeated, we put them on some couldn't understand that. it had never happened before. but as one of the american lawyers who was at nuremberg says, "i was trying to prove that the rule of law should govern human behavior. and by doing so we broadened the reach and scope of justice around the world."
held ourselves out as a beacon and an example for others. we are a nation that won world wars without grabbing the resources of those we defeated. we helped them rebuild. we didn't hold on to territory other than the cemeteries where we buried our dead. our greatest generation fought and bled and died to build an international order of laws and institutions that could preserve the peace and extend prosperity and promote cooperation among nations. and for all of its imperfections we call on that international order to protect our own freedom. in other words, we are a nation that at our best has been defined by hope and not fear. a country that went through the crucible of a civil war to offer a new birth of freedom.
that stormed the beaches of normandy, climbed the hills of iwo jima, that sow ordinary people mobilize to extend the meaning of civil rights. that's who we are. that's what makes us stronger than any act of terror.ç remember that history. remember what that flag stands for. for we depend on you. the heirs to that legacy. our men and women in uniform and the citizens who support you. to carry forward what is best in us. that commitment to a common creed. the confidence that right makes might, not the other way around.
[ applause ] that's how we can sustain this long struggle. that's how we'll protect this country. that's how we'll protect our constitution. against all threats, foreign and domestic. i trust that you will fulfill that mission as you've fulfilled all others. it has been the greatest honor of my life to service as your commander in chief. i thank you for all you've done and all you may do in the future. may god bless you, may god bless our troops, and may god bless the united states of america. ♪ >> all right. you have been listening to president barack obama, his final foreign policy speech as president of the united states. a little bit more than six weeks or so away from becoming a private citizen. he went on to say that we are a nation defined by hope and not fear and reminding those in the audience, those who would fight the battle in the war on terror, that terrorists want us to turn
on one another. obviously replaying a theme that has been bedevilling his administration, whether he has brought the war to them. he went on to say that we have to help refugees who have escaped the horrors of war than that got a tepid response from those in the audience. but again, his message has always been they must find a home and we must act like the bigger player we are on the global stage. to former army green beret ben collins, former state department official morgan ortega. morgan, what did you make of that message? >> after eight years, and i think that it's really striking what his vision is for isis in the middle east and how we go about fighting the war on terrorism versus that of the president-elect. i was struck at how he once again made the case that we should be treating isis almost like they're a member of the mob, like a criminal entity, as opposed to terrorism. and i've got to tell you, neil, if you're in saudi arabia or if you're in the uae today you take
isis a lot more seriously than i think our president did. i understand why he's being dismissive in the sense that he doesn't think they're as big of a threat as they'd like to be. but i think that there's a difference between being, quote unquote, fearful and being respectful of your enemy. and i think anyone who deals with them in the region certainly respects the fact that they have every intention to destroy america and our allies. i think if you talk to general flynn or general mattis today these are not men who are scared of isis but they have a healthy respect for our enemies that i thought was lacking in the president's speech today. i also find it quite interesting that he spoke very dismissively of gitmo. this is a facility that he promised to close over the past eight years. while at the same time defending, you know, his actions via drone strike. there was a little bit of an intellectual inconsistency there for me. but i really think you have the fundamental difference between these two men, between our current president and our president-elect, and i think you're going to see
president-elect trump and hopefully mattis and general flynn fight this war very differently than we have over the past six years. >> you know, ben collins, one of the things we brought up was the fact that we are still fighting a 15-year-old war. in other words, we haven't advanced beyond that original war of 15 years ago. and that he was kind of lumping the blame on congress for not declaring war let's say on isil or isis whatever the popular vernacular is and that as a result that is what prompted him to not respond to the famous red line issue in syria that if that government used chemical weapons, which if later did, that would warrant a response, that would cross a red line. he seemed to blame in retrospect congress for that and not himself. what do you make of that? >> neil, i think this is the final speech in the final chapter of the fantasy that he's been living for the last eight years. i think one of the most amazing thing he said is i'm the only president to serve a full two
terms as a president during time of war. this is the same guy that told us he's ended those two wars. but to that point specifically when he said we've been fighting a war, no, that's not the case. the president has been fighting a war. so on the one hand he tried to make the case against executive overreach. but the fact is that that authorization used a military force that we're utilizing right now, the president is utilizing that. and yes, that's the original one that said that we can go after anybody that had anything to do with 9/11. so taliban and al qaeda. this is a president that has chosen to use that same aumf. and i agree with him by the way that congress has failed to do its job. but the president has still utilized that aumf to go after isis. isis used to be al qaeda in iraq. yes. but we're talking about going in and using the same one for yemen, for syria. et cetera. so it's interesting the way he uses we and then he puts all the blame on congress. yes, congress has failed to do its job but it has been the president's decision to use that. >> all right, guys, thank you very much. i apologize for the truncated
time here given all the latest developments. i want to bridge nigel farage in. the brexit leader who by the way is on the short list for "time" magazine's person of the year. only about a dozen people on that list. but nigel, always good to have you. i wanted to get your take on that comment about refugees. we have to help refugees who've escaped the horrors of war. what did you think of that? >> well, it's funny, isn't it? the one thing we didn't get from obama is any contrition, any apology, any acknowledgment of the fact that actually the unnecessary interference in places like libya is directly what has led to the growth of isis and has led to this flood of displaced people or refugees. i think we need to go back to the 1951 geneva convention definition of what a refugee is. a refugee is a man or a woman who is in direct threat of their
provided we have securejn6gl bo we can find room in our hearts for genuine refugees. and i'm thinking particularly of christians living in syria, living in iraq, being murdered, being persecuted as one very good clear example. what we cannot do, i'm slvçafra and if only we could as human beings, but there are 59 million people currently displaced by war according to the united nations. and if obama is suggesting that we in the west can find room for all of these people, particularly given the fact that we have no means to vet whether these people have terrorist links, that is a problem. one quick thing, neil. a year ago we saw those appalling massacres taking place in restaurants and that theater in france. of the eight men that committed those atrocities, five of them had got into europe crossing the
mediterranean posing as refugees. so i'm sorry, obama. we need to be more careful than that. >> now, one of the things he talked about is that we as a civil society have to look after our weakest members and displaced members, obviously referring to the refugees, and that there's a vetting process. i'm paraphrasing here. but he's always said that in this country, in america we have a vetting process, we go through this closely. but we've proven that vetting process oftentimes can fall through the cracks. so what does a president trump do? >> i repeat the point. most of these people suffering though they are, but most of them would not qualify as refugees. and you know, when david cameron visited one of the camps and he was showed around by a jordanian minister, who said even though this camp has women and children in it and not just young males, even here you must accept, mr. cameron, that 2% of these people will be people of terrorist l n
leaning sympathies. and what trump has said very clearly in the campaign and my goodness me, it's resonated, is for america to be safe you have to be absolutely sure that anyone coming to you is a genuine refugee and has no links with terrorism. and if you couple that with stopping open borders, you will make your country safer. and i'm speaking to you here from brussels, where there are whole districts that effectively have become no-go zones. so the message is trump, don't let america become like brussels. you know what? i'm sure that he won't. >> finally, on this short list of "time" magazine's person of the year, in citing you, in choosing you as head of the uk independence party, and i'm quaeting here, "farage was the face of the successful campaign for britain to leave the european union, positioning the referendum as the start of a global populist wave against the political establishment go, going on to say "one that would
later include donald trump." what do you make of that? >> well, i would like to think it's true in some ways. i mean, i battled for a quarter of a centery. i was laughed at,$jt)q" and derided because i believed in nation state democracy. i believed in normality. i believed in the things that my grandparents went to war to fight and defend for. you know, democracy in the nation state. it took me a long time, but we won. did it help donald trump and the republicans? i would like to think that it did. and of course just 48 hours ago we saw initially the third big revolution of this year. so whether i win or not, i have no idea. i mean, personally i might vote for beyonce. i'm not sure. but let's see what happens. >> all right. i think think your stiffest competition could be beyonce knowles. thank you very much. good seeing you. we are two weeks away from the electors, those that are
based on the system that elected the president of the united states. i want you to meet one who is not going to go the way his state went, after this. i thought i married an italian. my lineage was the vecchios and zuccolis. through ancestry, through dna i found out that i was only 16% italian. he was 34% eastern european. so i went onto ancestry, soon learned that one of our ancestors we thought was italian was eastern european. this is my ancestor who i didn't know about. he looks a little bit like me, yes. ancestry has many paths to discovering your story. get started for free at ancestry.com just serve classy snacks and bew a gracious host,iday party. no matter who shows up. do you like nuts? nature's bounty hair, skin and nails challenge.he so in 30 days, my future self will thank me.
part of our electoral college, he does not want to go the way his state went. texas republican electorate now saying that he will not go along with donald trump. chris, very good to have you. why? >> thank you, neil. why no donald trump? >> yeah. >> he fails a three-point test that the founders established for us. number one, we had multiple generals and foreign policy
experts, i believe 50, who said donald trump would be dangerous if he were president. two, he continues to divide the nation, attacking the first amendment, the constitution, spending more time attacking the "saturday night live" cast than he does attending his intelligence briefings. while they are subjective concerns, objectively, you can look and based on the emolument clause, he fails. >> you can say that but aren't you koobligated to reflect the will of voters in the state of texas? >> that's not how the system was set up in the state of texas. >> you would prefer john kasich if you had your druthers, right? >> someone like john kasich. i'll be honest, i didn't vote
for john kasich in the primary. >> but you did like donald trump originally. what changed? >> i don't know about "like." i've been reluctantly hopeful that he would become more presidential and release his tax returns, disclose his financial dealings. >> but he got 360 electoral votes. are there others who feel as you do and are they in sufficient numbers to deny him the 270 electoral votes he needs? there are 36 others like you that you think would feel the same way? >> that's the better question i have no idea.. i am one person who wants to be comfortable with my decision on december 20th as well as de now i cannot vote for donald trump and be comfortable after the fact. he fails that test. >> but you would express it -- argue if it was a republican, you would prefer a republican? >> without question. i am in a deliberation stage.
i am looking for a republican, preferably with both executive and legislative experience. no disrespect to secretary clinton, i will not be voting for her. i understand she won the popular vote. people tweeting me saying, hey, this is a great op-ed, now vote for mrs. clinton, i'm sorry, that will not happen. i'm going to choose another republican. >> do you think that's fair to the voters in your state, though, and all of these other states that gave mr. trump a significant victory? >> well, i'm not sure what a significant victory is. >> he won the electoral vote with 306 electoral vote. >> he did. and the question is always -- the question that keeps getting sent to me, do i represent texas or do i represent the congressional district that went 4-1 in the favor of hillary. >> so you don't know who will you vote for but it's not going to be donald trump? >> i'm in the deliberate tif stage.
it takes hard work, dedication and hours of practice for a drum line to perfect its routine. rocket mortgage by quicken loans is just as precise... but it only requires a few minutes of your time. now, you can securely share your financial information with the push of a button, giving you an accurate and custom
mortgage solution without missing a beat. [drum line sfx: rocket] quicken loans. proud supporter of college athletics. [sfx: rocket (whisper)] hello, everyone. i'm dana perino along with kimberly guilfoyle, eric bolling, greg gutfeld and this is "the five." we are just two hours away from president-elect donald trump's second stop of his post election thank you tour, this time in fayetteville, north carolina. you never know what he might say. stay tuned. remember the big news he revealed in cincinnati last week. >> i don't want to tell you this because i want to save the suspense. we are going to appoint mad dog mattisas